Slashdot Mirror
Theresa May Becomes UK's 'Spy Queen' and New Prime Minister (arstechnica.co.uk)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Ars Technica: Theresa May has become the new British Prime Minister. As she sat down with the Queen on Wednesday, a controversial surveillance draft legislation that looks to significantly increase surveillance of Brits' online activity will be debated during its second committee stage day in the House of Lords. Ars Technica reports: "The Investigatory Powers Act could be in place within months of May arriving at Number 10 -- if peers and legal spats fail to scupper its passage through parliament -- after MPs recently waved it through having secured only minor amendments to the bill. As home secretary, May fought for six years to get her so-called Snoopers' Charter onto the statute books." According to Ars Technica, Theresa May's key political moments on the Investigatory Powers Bill start in 1997 when she became the Member of Parliament for Maidenhead. During her opposition years, her home affairs record shows that she generally votes against the Labour government's more draconian measures on topics such as anti-terrorism and ID cards. Mid-2009: May votes against requiring ISPs to retain certain categories of communications data, which they generate or process, for a minimum period of 12 months. 2010: She was appointed home secretary in coalition government between the Conservatives and junior partner the Liberal Democrats. 2011: The previous government's shelved Interception Modernization Program is rebranded as the Communications Capabilities Development Program (CCDP) by home office under May. Mid-2012: The CCDP morphs into Communications Data Bill, which is brought before parliament. Late-2012: May's Snoopers' Charter bid fails as deputy PM Nick Clegg orders the home office to go back to the drawing board. Mid-2014: May rushes what she characterizes as an "emergency" Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill through parliament, after the European Court of Justice invalidates the Data Retention Directive for failing to have adequate privacy safeguards in place. Late-2015: British security services have intercepted bulk communications data of UK citizens for years, May reveals to MPs for the first time as she brings her revamped Snoopers' Charter bid -- this time dubbed the Investigatory Powers Bill (IPB) -- before parliament. Mid-2016: MPs support thrust of IPB as it passes through the House of Commons. July 13, 2016: Theresa May becomes the UK's new prime minister as peers in the House of Lords undertake a second day of committee stage scrutiny of the Investigatory Powers Bill. UPDATE 7/13/16: Boris Johnson, the former London mayor who led the Brexit campaign, has been made foreign secretary by the new Prime Minister Theresa May.
I keep reading these headlines that Theresa "may" become prime minister. I wish they would make up their minds.
You're forgetting a lot of downsides of the U.S. system, and the fact that individual states do have referendums, and you're oversimplifying the UK system.
David Cameron wasn't ousted, he pushed hard for a specific outcome in the referendum, and he lost. The voters rejected a deal he had negotiated, and a policy he willingly bet his premiership on. All that said, he could have stayed as long as the Conservative party wanted him, but it's reasonable for him to step down after losing.
The vote itself also wasn't binding, it's up to Parliament to execute it. This wasn't a law that was passed by referendum. Unlike in the U.S., Parliament (technically the "Queen in Parliament") is supreme in the UK, and can change any law it wants. There's no written constitution, and thus not really the concept of an "unconstitutional" law. The PM is elected by a majority of parliament. This system means that a government usually can get its manifesto legislation passed, and it's easier to hold a government responsible for keeping its promises. The U.S. system can allow for years of deadlock, and whereas an independent commission is responsible for defining constituency boundaries in the UK, they're set by politicians in the U.S. If a party can gain control of the legislature of a state (quick - name any member of your state legislature), it can effectively control that state's seats in Congress for a decade. All of this lends a lot more legitimacy to the UK government.
So yes, getting things done in the U.S. system is harder, and it's easier for a few states to block legislation. That doesn't mean the U.S. system has greater legitimacy, quite the opposite. The state governments are barely accountable for their actions, and even a party with strong popular support can fail to get its legislation passed thanks to the byzantine electoral system.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Come on dude, what you said was naive. If you were watching British news and reading articles at BBC, Sun.uk, The Times, etc. you would understand even if you are American.
But you are clueless and don't have any interest in UK politics. Then you talk as is you are speaking knowledgeably --- when in fact your opinion is a demonstrates a lack of knowledge and understanding of UK politics.
Pay attention is fine. Not paying attention is fine. Not paying attention and then trying to speak from a position of knowledge is just lame dude.
Dear editors,
I'm genuinely interested in understanding this summary but, it's effectively a gigantic wall of text that's almost impossible to understand or follow. Could you please, I dunno, edit...
Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary isn't the only Cabinet Minister she's appointed which will have international implications, she has also created two new cabinet posts;
Secretary of State for Exiting the EU - David Davis
Secretary of State for International Trade - Liam Fox
The first is getting us out of the EU, the second is for getting new trade agreements for when we are out of the EU.
All these three are Brexiters, and will be responsible for the aftermath. Very clever - as May was a Remainer, she has effectively delegated responsibility for the success or failure of exiting the EU on to those who campaigned to get us into this situation in the first place!
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
He decided that since the country's majority ran contrary to his stance, it was a good idea to vacate his position and let someone else lead.
Not exactly. He decided to hand the metaphorical flaming bag of excrement (the literal flaming bag is an old Eton tradition, so I hear) to Boris Johnson so he could watch him squirm take the blame in the aftermath.
If you think this is anything to do with representing the will of the people or ethics, then I have a bridge to sell you.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It depends what kind of democracy you want and what kind of democracy you have. Democracy isn't a Model T. It doesn't just come in one colour. In the UK we have a representative democracy. It's intended to act as a shield against the temporary whim of the people. It's why we don't have the death penalty. We elect people to arbitrate between the interests of the nation and the people.
Referendums on the other hand are just mob rule. "A device for dictators and demagogues". It's also worth bearing in mind that while most people who voted, voted to leave, it was a minority of the electorate.
I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
Well we can vote to rejoin the EU, sure, if all 27 other countries want us back, and if we join the Euro, and join the Shengen border free zone. And pay the full contribution without the rebates we negotiated. Personally I think we should do all that, and get over ourselves and stop being an awkward antagonistic special snowflake in Europe.
Europe is massively more democratic than it is perceived in the UK. The commission is headed by 28 representatives appointed by their democratically elected governments (albeit appointed to act in the interests of Europe) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... the European parliament is made up of MEPs voted in directly. The council is the elected heads of state of the member countries. Junker was the first president of the commission elected to the post by the elected European parliament.
There is a reasonably plausible democratic path to everyone involved, naturally there are lots of civil service type staff employed by the whole thing, and it is a bloated gravy train of bureaucracy, but that in itself is reformable and not undemocratic.
It's a shit question.
"Remain a member of the European Union" is ok, you know what is being voting for - and, equally importantly - the people who voted for the other option also know what its proponents were voting for.
"Leave the European Union" is utterly stupid. Nobody knows what it means. For some leave voters it means stop immigration at all costs. For other leave voters it meant "continue the free movement of people and goods within Europe".
Compare this question with the 2011 alternative vote question:
At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the "alternative vote" system be used instead?
"alternative vote" was defined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Imagine instead if this question had been:
At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should a proportional voting system be used instead?'
I would expect that this would have carried. Much like the EU question, the alternative to the status quo is a shifting target that can be defined to whatever the proponent wants. Of course, had that question been asked then we'd then have had a mess to sort out when everybody wanted a different PR system.
What should have happened is that DC should have negotiated with Europe on, say, Britain adopting the Norwegian model and leaving the EU. Once he'd got approval then gone to the country with
"Remain a member of the European Union"
"Adopt the Norwegian model of membership in the EEA"
(Or he could have gone for a no-free movement of people or goods WTO rules model alternative)
Now the question is clearer - and even if it had gone against DC, at least everybody would have known what was going to happen.
Britain is utterly crap at negotiating. We have an adversarial system, both in parliament and in the judiciary. Most European nations have had much more experience with having to establish coalitions. It's going to be interesting to see how the next two years go and whether the press is reporting how those "evil Europeans are ganging up on us" when almost certainly none of them are arguing for what they really want but instead for what they understand they can really get.
At least for some things in Europe we used to have a veto. That gave us a lot of clout - however awkward we were we couldn't be completely ignored (and the 10-12% control of the vote helped too). We also tended to hold the balance of power in Franco-German differences - so neither country to afford to upset us too much. We're giving all that up. That might mean Europe now tears itself to pieces or it might mean that Europe can now rebuild itself stronger in a more cooperative model.
We've now got idiots saying that any deal with Europe should now go to another referendum. I predict that there is NO deal that can be made that will attract a majority of the votes. The single largest minority is probably "remain in the EU" which has already been rejected. I suppose we could put two deals on the referendum and force people to chose one or the other - just make sure that the other option is so bad that it cannot win.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
It wasn't that hard:
£350 - nope, that was a lie.
71 failed no votes - true, but that amounted to 3%, we actually got our way about 90% of the time.
EEA without free movement - we were constantly told this wouldn't happen, and still are being told this.
Fisherman won't have to deal with quotas - even if that were to happen, how long would it take for them to be reintroduced after they return to over-fishing indiscriminately?
109 laws on pillows - John Oliver covered that nicely.
The EU need us more than we need them (trade deficit) - only if you ignore the fact the EU's GDP is five times greater than the UK's.
All you had to do is check if there was a modicum of truth in what you heard.
You have to understand; to an American, the concept of a leader voluntarily submitting to the will of the people is completely alien.
109 laws on pillows - John Oliver covered that nicely
I didn't hear that one, but I remember when the right wing press through a massive shit fit over the EU regulating domestic (i.e. not certified for use in commercial kitchens) oven gloves.
Oh woe those evil Europeans forcing regulation on us hard working British manufacturers of deeply shitty oven gloves.
The EU law was to insist that they would work at a mere 200C which is of course inane because most domestic ovens reach 250. But that wasn't the cause of complaint. No, the complaint was that British manufactuers would have to stop selling oven gloves that wouldn't be safe even as low as 200C.
It came as a bit of a shock that it was actually legal to sell oven gloves that can't be safely used to take stuff out of a normal oven. Apparently the EU are evil for wanting to stop manufacturers salling blatently substsandard goods.
SJW n. One who posts facts.